Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Grid map-based path planning and task assignment are studied in this manuscript, which is meaningful work. My opinion is 'minor revision'. It is suggested that the author add some more complicated cases and show the final result in the form of pictures.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! We have made changes based on your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript proposes a two-stage optimization method to improve warehouse operation efficiency and reduce costs. 

In my opinion, the manuscript should be changed in order to addressed some concerns and isues on it:

1.Charts and formulas should conform to writing specifications.

2.It is recommended that the authors add units to the axis variables.

3.It is recommended that the author should verify the efficiency of the proposed algorithm in real environment

4.The authors should supplement the ablation experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and necessity of the various modules of the model.

5.It is recommended that the author compare the proposed scheme with the current-state-of-art method and analyze it.

6.It is recommended to compare and analyze the following articles respectively.

Trajectory Prediction of Cyclist Based on Dynamic Bayesian Network and Long Short-Term Memory Model at Unsignalized Intersections. DOI: 10.1007/s11432-020-3071-8.

An Interacting Multiple Model for Trajectory Prediction of Intelligent Vehicles in Typical Road Traffic Scenario. DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3136866.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! We have made changes based on your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a solution to a warehouse logistics problem using the A* algorithm and a genetic algorithm. AGV path planning and task scheduling are critical challenges in smart warehouse logistics. The references seem up to date and relevant. The following comments are intended to help improve the paper.

- The objective of the research is not clearly stated in the introduction section. It needs to be clearly stated along with a brief explanation of the proposed approach.

- In Line 164, the term that is referred to as decision variables is a bit ambiguous. Is it a vector? If so, how many dimensions does it have? 

- The contents of Line 164 and Line 182 should be presented in tables.

- The o and d terms are not clearly defined in the A* algorithm.

- The step-by-step representations of the two algorithms are provided in plain English. In addition, they need standard algorithmic representations with rigorous math notations that are suitable for the journal of Mathematics.

- The analysis section needs discussion on the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm in terms of the theory of computation.

- This paper may be a good fit for journals that focus on logistics or operations research.

 

Overall, the quality of English is good. It needs some editorial corrections.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! We have made changes based on your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The second version was able to address some of my comments. Thanks for the efforts. However, the authors still need to properly define and explain the computational complexity of the two algorithms. Does the big-O notation in Equation 29 define space complexity or time complexity? In addition, the algorithm tables need proper captions. The nomenclature tables in Line 187 and Line 205 do not have proper table captions. The paper still needs some major work before publication. Besides, this paper can be a better fit for the journal of Mathematics and Computational Applications than the journal of Mathematics.

Author Response

Thank you for your new comments! We have made changes based on your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication now. It may need some editorial corrections.